Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss with the chairman of the committee the status of the bill and the pendency of my amendment No. 4392. This is a very important amendment which would give relief to homeowners with variable rate mortgages where there is foreclosure action, where they suddenly find the monthly payments increased unexpectedly from as much as $1,400 to $1,900, which they cannot afford and then their house goes into foreclosure. The borrowers do not understand that, and frequently there is misrepresentation, fraud. This amendment differs markedly from the Durbin amendment, which was defeated, which would have had a serious impact on the availability of lenders to put up money if there is undue interference with the contractual rights. This amendment protects the homeowners. It does little harm to the fluidity of the availability to get loans. We are moving toward a cloture vote at 2:30 p.m. By all indications, cloture is going to be invoked, although I intend to fight it, to talk about it in the caucus which will be held in a few minutes. On the Republican side, we talked about denying cloture in order to give Members an opportunity to have their amendments heard and voted on, and I intend to press that issue. I was prepared to vote on this amendment last Thursday, when I was taken from the floor to go to a Judiciary Committee hearing because the expectation of another Republican covering it was not fulfilled. So I had to go over to the hearing as ranking member because we had a number of nominees in the Judiciary Committee hearing. Now I find we are moving to cloture, and there is no opportunity for a vote. In my judgment, that is not the way this place ought to operate. I know the chairman of the committee is bound by leadership decisions, but I hope we can find a way to get a vote on this amendment. I know there are other Members who have amendments who want votes. May I ask the chairman for a response?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the problem with the argument by the chairman is that looking to the future, the reality is that nothing will happen. It is a long way from the representation, which I know the chairman makes in very good faith, to have a bill come out of committee and come back to the floor, in light of what has happened on the calendar. It is just that the chances are so small, it cannot remotely be relied upon. When the chairman makes the comment about postcloture germaneness, the Senate rules on what is germane are so arcane as to be un- understandable, just un-understandable. Here we have a housing bill. What could be more material to a housing bill when foreclosures are happening across the country as we speak? The Senator from Connecticut comments about the high rate of foreclosures, and this is an amendment which seeks to stop the foreclosures, and it seeks to stop the foreclosures where the lender has provided an instrument, which is a variable rate mortgage, that the borrower does not understand; it has not been explained; there are probably misrepresentations in many cases and probably fraud in many cases. That is why this amendment opens up the court to make a determination of that. It does not impede upon the fluidity of the market and the availability of capital, such as the Durbin amendment did, which changed the principal sum. The legislation which is coming out of the Congress and what is happening on the administration is very heavily tilted to Wall Street and not to Main Street. Those are the expressions. It is the little guy who is not being taken care of. I have admired what the Senator from Connecticut has had to say about that. This bill is imbalanced--a bailout of Bear Stearns but you cannot protect the borrower who has a variable rate mortgage which he did not understand, where the rates have ballooned and he is being foreclosed. That is not fair, and that is not right. This bill is not balanced. It has a loss carried forward, which I think is a good provision, but that does not help the little guy. It has a tax credit for somebody who buys a house where the mortgage is in foreclosure, but that does not keep the homeowner in the house. I don't think the Senate ought to move ahead. This is not half a loaf, this is a crumb. This bill is a crumb. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, metaphors are meant to be extreme. We cannot quantify a crumb as opposed to a loaf of bread. But no one would say this is half a loaf. The criticism of this bill has largely come from the chairman of the committee who has said it does not go far enough.

Mr. SPECTER. When we have foreclosures across the country on variable rate mortgages and no action is being taken to deal with them--let me ask the Senator from Connecticut: If we consider the action which has been taken by the Fed on Bear Stearns and otherwise and we consider what this legislation is, isn't it significantly out of balance between Main Street and Wall Street?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a final word. I don't disagree with what the chairman has had to say about what was done with Bear Stearns. I think we are all opposed--I certainly am opposed--to bailouts when highly sophisticated Wall Street operators are looking for big profits and their judgment is bad and they lose money. They ought not come to the taxpayers for a bailout. I do recognize the situation with Bear Stearns could have had a domino effect, which could have been devastating. So I don't disagree with that action. I am not going to retreat from my crumb metaphor, but let the record show that on the question to the chairman as to whether there was not substantial imbalance between what has happened with the Fed and what is happening with proposals in the Congress, substantial imbalance between Wall Street and the Main Street, the chairman did not deny that, did not deal with it. Let me close with a question, if the chairman would give favorable consideration to my amendment when he reconvenes the Banking Committee and take up this issue in the future.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the Judiciary Committee did report out the Durbin amendment favorably, and my amendment on a second degree was defeated along party lines, it is true there is primary jurisdiction in the Judiciary Committee. But when this matter comes up before the Banking, Housing and Urban Development Committee, these ideas could be incorporated, and I would urge my colleague to do just that.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on the pending Durbin amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I will.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Illinois for offering this amendment and for initiating very considerable discussion on the plight now being faced by many individuals who are faced with mortgage foreclosure. He and I have had very extensive discussions on his proposal and my legislative proposal, which has been introduced as S. 2133, which differs from the Durbin amendment in that it provides authority for the bankruptcy court to change the variable interest rate mortgages which have caused so much confusion and so much difficulty in leading to foreclosures by people who could not pay the increases which were noted by the variable interest rate mortgages. There have been a number of situations where the mortgage rate has jumped far in excess of what the borrower had anticipated. A homeowner in Lithonia, GA, who borrowed on a variable interest rate mortgage, found the interest payments rising from $1,079 to $1,444, which the borrower could not afford. A first-time home buyer in De Soto, TX, found their variable interest rate mortgage moving from $1,400 to $1,900. It is a pattern across the country where people have faced foreclosures. The difficulty which I see with the Durbin amendment is it will impact on the ability of borrowers to secure mortgages in the future because lenders will be unwilling to loan money where there is the prospect that Congress will intervene and grant authority to bankruptcy courts similar to that suggested by Senator Durbin today. The core of the consideration was articulated by Justice Stevens in a case captioned Nobleman v. American Savings, in 1993, where Justice Stevens said: At first blush it seems somewhat strange that the Bankruptcy code should provide less protection to an individual's interest in retaining possession of his or her home than of other assets. The anomaly is, however, explained by the legislative history indicating that favorable treatment of residential mortgages was intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market. So you have the anomalous situation, as articulated by Justice Stevens, that on the principal home the bankruptcy court does not have such authority. That is for a very sound public policy reason: that if the bankruptcy court did have that authority, then lenders would be unwilling to lend money for first-home mortgages. So if you have a second home or if you have a yacht or if you have other assets, the bankruptcy court does have that authority, but for good reason it does not have the authority on first homes. There have been a number of studies on the subject concluding that the impact of the Durbin amendment would be deleterious to the ability of people to get mortgages because of the reluctance of lenders to put up the money. Professor Joseph Mason of Drexel University testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that ``it is straightforward to conclude'' that cramdowns will increase the cost of mortgage credit. In its analysis of economic stimulus options, the Congressional Budget Office noted that one of the costs of cramdown proposals ``could be higher mortgage interest rates.'' Federal Chairman Bernanke testified before Congress that modification of mortgages ``would probably lead to concern about the value of existing mortgages and probably higher interest rates for mortgages in the future.'' In studying the impact of cramdowns for farm real estate in Chapter 12 bankruptcy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that cramdowns raise the interest rates on farm real estate loans by between 25 and 100 basis points. Even the report cited by supporters of Senator Durbin's bill concluded interest rates will increase. In their paper, ``The Effect of Bankruptcy Strip-Down on Mortgage Interest Rates,'' Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin and Joshua Goodman acknowledge that allowing bankruptcy courts to cram down mortgages will increase interest rates. The effect of my bill, which is a great deal more modest, will not, I submit, have that effect. The essence of the bill which I have proposed will apply only to mortgages given, borrowings, prior to the date of the introduction of my bill and will sunset in 7 years. I think it is important the legislation now pending in the Senate deal with the so-called little guy, the guy who lives on Main Street. We have already seen very substantial relief for Wall Street in the Bear Stearns bailout. I am opposed to bailouts. If the entrepreneurs on Wall Street are making investments with the prospect or the expectation or the hope of big profits, and they find their judgment is bad and those profits are not realized and instead there are losses, it seems to me they ought not to be coming to the taxpayers for a bailout. Where they are looking for big-time speculative profits, and they are wrong, they ought to sustain those losses instead of having the losses sustained by the taxpayers. It is understandable that the Federal Reserve took an exceptional view of the Bear Stearns situation in order to avoid a potential ripple effect and devastating consequences on the economy. It was not a gigantic bailout, in any event, when Bear Stearns stock was selling for $150 or thereabouts a year ago, and the initial bailout was for $2 and the prospect of increasing that to $10. But I believe the current legislation pending before the Senate is unduly balanced for the big guy as opposed to the little guy or the person who operates on Wall Street as opposed to the person who lives on Main Street. That is why I support the focus of attention which Senator Durbin has brought with his bill--although for the reasons I have stated I disagree, and my bill takes a much more modest approach-- Senator Durbin and I worked long and hard to try to reach some accommodation and some compromise, and we could not do it because our approaches are so basically different. We finally had a vote on our bill in the Judiciary Committee today. Our legislation was introduced last fall and could have been acted on by the Senate a long time ago. We could have brought this matter to the floor and stimulated other amendments and other discussion. The delay of months has resulted in many foreclosures. In the Judiciary Committee today, on a 10-to-9 party-line vote, my bill was defeated, and the Durbin bill was passed for action on the floor. But events on the floor have finally overtaken the committee action. The committee did act today.

Mr. SPECTER. I do.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I answer the distinguished Senator from Illinois through the Chair by saying that is correct. My bill does allow for the modification of the principal sum but only where the lender is in agreement. I do not do that to give the lender control of the situation. I do that to avoid having a principle established where lenders in the future will be unwilling to loan money for mortgages if they think the bankruptcy court has the authority to reduce the principal over their objection. But if the lender agrees to it--and I think it is important because the bankruptcy court would not have the authority to reduce the principal unless there is the provision I have by obtaining the lender's agreement. But the principle that the Senator from Illinois seeks to reduce the principal sum, I think, is sound, so long as you do not destroy the ability of the lender to control it so as to not discourage future lenders. So my answer is yes.

Mr. SPECTER. It would apply only as long as they are variable interest rate mortgages.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is correct. It may be that my proposal is too modest in that respect. I am not in concrete on that specific provision because I think that could be modified to accommodate different markets without dealing with the underlying principles I am concerned with.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for the questions. I think the questions clarify the positions. It is almost like debating an issue in the world's greatest deliberative body. Too often speeches are made with no one present except the Presiding Officer and perhaps someone who is listening on C-SPAN 2, besides my sisters. But we need more of this kind of a discussion in the Senate to illuminate and provide a little life and a little spontaneity besides Senators who rise and read from a text, and frequently reading badly from a text. I agree with the Senator from Illinois that we ought to move ahead on this bill and vote as soon as possible, and I join him in urging people who have amendments to come to the floor. It is my intention to offer another--my amendment, S. 2133, and to have a vote on that after we conclude with the amendment by the Senator from Illinois. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer legislation to encourage Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is also the chairman of the Fatah Party, to officially abrogate the 10 articles in the Fatah Constitution that call for Israel's destruction and terrorism against Israel, oppose any political solution, and label Zionism as racism. In order to move the Middle East peace process forward, it is necessary that the Fatah Party recognize Israel's legitimacy. The Fatah Constitution makes this impossible. At present, 10 articles in the constitution oppose Israel and Zionism. They read as follows: (1) ``Article [4]: The Palestinian struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism.'' (2) ``Article [7]: The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organization and method.'' (3) ``Article [8]: The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism.'' (4) ``Article [12]: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.'' (5) ``Article [17]: Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.'' (6) ``Article [19]: Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.'' (7) ``Article [22]: Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian case or impose any international mandate on its people.'' (8) ``Article [23]: Maintaining relations with Arab countries . . . with the proviso that the armed struggle is not negatively affected.'' (9) ``Article [24]: Maintaining relations with all liberal forces supporting our just struggle in order to resist Zionism and imperialism.'' (10) ``Article [25]: Convincing concerned countries in the world to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine as a method of solving the problem.'' The issue of the Mideast peace process has been tortuous. There have been so many developments since Israel emerged as a state in 1949. The enmity, which has existed for thousands of years, has meant senseless killing, terrorism in Israel, and Hezbollah firing rockets into northern Israel, prompting the justified retaliation by Israel as a matter of self-defense. Much has changed since the Fatah Constitution was written in 1964. While some question the relevance of the document with respect to the day-to-day operations of the Palestinian Government, the fact remains that the language is incendiary. By striking the polemical language from its constitution, Fatah would be setting an example for the Arab world. It would demonstrate that the Palestinian leadership understands the importance of words and perceptions in the peace process. This is not the first time I have addressed such an issue. In 1994, the U.S. Congress adopted an amendment put forward by Senator Shelby and myself, which conditioned U.S. aid on the Palestinian Liberation Organization's elimination of provisions in its charter that called for the destruction of Israel. The amendment was accepted by the U.S. Congress. The problem of the institutionalization of inflammatory language in the Middle East extends beyond the Fatah Constitution. The Center for Religious Freedom, formerly affiliated with Freedom House, in a 2006 report entitled ``Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance,'' stated that despite 2005 statements by the Saudi Foreign Minister that their educational curricula have been reformed, this is ``simply not the case.'' On the contrary, religious textbooks continue to advocate the destruction of any non-Wahhabi Muslim. Saudi Arabia has established Wahhabism, an extreme form of Islam, as the official state doctrine, and about 5 million children are instructed each year in Islamic studies using Saudi Ministry of Education textbooks. My intent in bringing the Fatah Constitution into focus now is not to undermine the Presidency of Mahmoud Abbas. Rather, my intent is to ensure that these problems of perception are addressed now so that all parties can take further steps towards peace. The November 27, 2007, Joint Israeli-Palestinian Declaration at Annapolis stated, ``We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.'' As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated on October 15, 2007, in Ramallah, ``If you're going to have a two-state solution, you have to accept the right of the other party to exist. If you're going to have a two-state solution that is born of negotiation, you're going to have to renounce violence.'' I urge President Abbas to take action, not only in words, but with deeds.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I understand I have 30 minutes, and I now ask unanimous consent that it be formalized.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to speak about three subjects: One, judicial confirmations; secondly, the budget resolution; and thirdly, the housing situation. First, as to the confirmation of judges, through staff, I have notified the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee that I intended to address this subject, and the theme of my comments is that we ought to be moving ahead on judicial confirmations. We have a situation where there has not been one confirmation of a Federal judge this year. Since September 25th of last year, there has only been one hearing for a circuit judge, and that was on February 21, in the midst of a recess. There have only been two hearings that included district court judges, the one on February 12 and one other. Six nominees have been heard; four are on the agenda for this week's executive business meeting. The comparison between what has happened with President Bush and President Clinton shows a decisive imbalance which requires prompt action by the Senate on the confirmation of President Bush's judges. During the last 2 years of President Clinton's administration, 15 circuit judges were confirmed compared to six for the last 2 years, so far, of the Bush Administration. During the last 2 years of President Clinton's administration, 57 district judges were confirmed compared to only 34 during the Bush Administration. On the 8-year cycle for President Clinton, 65 circuit judges were confirmed and 305 district judges. And so far, during President Bush's two terms, 57 circuit judges have been confirmed and 237 district judges have been confirmed. Now, the statistics can be argued in many ways, but I think it is hard to overcome the basic conclusion that it is unacceptable to have no confirmations of a Federal judge in the entire year, so far, in 2008. Three months have expired. It is unsatisfactory to have only one hearing for a circuit judge in the past 6 months, and last year only four circuit judges were given hearings. Now, regrettably, this pattern has evolved over the past two decades. During the last 2 years of President Reagan's administration, the Senate was controlled by the opposite party and there was a stall. Then, during the last 2 years of President George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush, again during the last 2 years of his administration, judges were stalled. Republicans retaliated with gusto during the last 6 years of President Clinton's administration and exacerbated the warfare on judges following what the Democrats had done. And, as we have seen in 2005, this Chamber was virtually cast asunder by the battle on the Democratic filibusters and the threat of a nuclear option or constitutional option to change the filibuster rules. It was open warfare in this Chamber, until it was finally worked out through the so-called Gang of 14. Now we have a desperate situation where judicial emergencies exist in many of these courts, and the Senate is not acting to confirm judges to fill those seats. The Washington Post has editorialized on the subject to this effect. In December of 2007, the Post said: [T]he Senate should act in good faith to fill vacancies-- not as a favor to the president but out of respect for the residents, businesses, defendants and victims of crime in the region the 4th Circuit covers. Two nominees--Mr. Conrad and Steve A. Matthews--should receive confirmation hearings as soon as possible. The Post further editorialized about another Fourth Circuit nominee: [B]locking Mr. Rosenstein's confirmation hearing . . . would elevate ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it would unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of this question agree is well qualified for a judgeship. What we are dealing with is not just politics in the Senate. We are dealing with the rights of residents--as noted by the Washington Post, of businesses, of defendants and victims of crime--who are affected by the failure to move ahead and confirm judges. That, I suggest, is totally unacceptable. I emphasize the blame rests on both parties, as this pattern has unfolded over the past two decades. Each time it has been exacerbated, it has intensified. I supported qualified judges during the administration of President Clinton because I thought it was inappropriate to tie them up. I thought the Democratic President was correct in seeking confirmation of his judges. Now I believe the Republican caucus is correct in saying it is inappropriate to block the confirmation of Federal judges, especially when no judge has been confirmed yet this year to the Federal courts and only one circuit court nomination hearing has been held in the past 6 months. It is my hope that we will find a way to declare a truce. We have an election coming up in November. It may well be that there will be a change of parties--or not. It may well be that, unless a truce is declared, the opposite party will have sufficient votes through filibusters or otherwise to stop judicial nominations. It hurts the country. It hurts the people who are trying to get their cases decided. It hurts litigants. The judicial process is fundamental in our society, and it is being thwarted by the tactics which have become business as usual in the Senate. I hope we will be able to resolve this matter. I hope we will be able to declare a truce. There is consideration being given to a variety of responses to this kind of conduct by the majority, and we all know any one Senator can tie up this body unilaterally because this place functions on unanimous consent and waivers of a lot of technical rules. That would be, perhaps, even more disastrous. But, we have to find a way out of this, I suggest, because it is totally unacceptable to continue as it is running today. Mr. President, I now ask that the Congressional Record contain a separate caption for what I am about to say, under a resolution which I am about to submit to change the budget process.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. We are scheduled to have a vote at 2:15 this afternoon on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to legislation that has been filed at the desk by the majority leader. This legislation contains a number of proposals, the most important of which is under consideration by the Judiciary Committee at the present time. I have filed alternative legislation, captioned S. 2133, which offered relief to homeowners who have so-called variable rate mortgages and who are facing bankruptcy. Home buyers who have variable rate mortgages are sometimes surprised to find their payments, after a period of time, jump from-- illustratively--$1,200 a month to $1,900 a month, an enormous change that they had not expected because they have a variable rate mortgage. I believe that in these situations, there is a good basis to give bankruptcy courts authority to inquire into the circumstances of such mortgages and to roll back or reduce the interest rates. The rate of foreclosure for these types of mortgages has more than doubled in the past year while foreclosure among homeowners with fixed-rate mortgages has increased only modestly. Frequently, the person taking out a mortgage doesn't understand there is a risk that there will be a large increase in the interest rates on variable rate mortgages. Sometimes there is deception on the part of the lender or mortgage broker. Sometimes it may even constitute fraud. I believe the best policy would be to allow the bankruptcy courts to consider these matters on an individual basis. The lender is still going to receive, ultimately, the full amount of the principle but not with interest rates that put the home buyer in a precarious position, or even foreclosure. Senator Durbin has introduced legislation captioned S. 2136 that goes much further by authorizing the bankruptcy court to reduce the principal amount of the mortgage. I am opposed to that approach because it will increase the risk associated with mortgage lending and discourage lenders from providing capital for home mortgages. The Bankruptcy Code currently does not allow for the modification of mortgages because Congress did not want to discourage lenders from giving mortgages to future homebuyers. There is an excellent statement by Justice Stevens in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank in which he gives that precise reason for the provision barring modification of mortgages. Congress must be cautious about making changes to the Bankruptcy Code that will leave consumers worse off in the long run. I believe Senator Durbin's proposal would have that effect. I believe we ought to be acting on the issues confronting us on housing, but I am concerned that given the current state of affairs, the procedures to be followed will preclude amendments, such as my interest in offering an amendment with the substance of my bill, S. 2133. The better practice would be to work through the Judiciary Committee, which is now considering the Durbin legislation, with my legislation offered in Committee as a second-degree amendment. We are scheduled to have a markup on that on Thursday. Regular order would suggest that is a better practice to have it come out of the Committee, where we are in the process of having a markup. We will later have a committee report, and it would be much more conducive to appropriate deliberation than having a measure filed under Rule XIV, where it is lodged at the desk, where there has not been analysis and a markup, and there has not been a committee report. If it is possible to offer amendments, I would consider supporting the cloture motion. However, if the majority leader is going to fill the tree and not allow amendments, then I am opposed to that procedure and would oppose cloture. The practice of so-called filling the tree is highly undesirable. The essence of Senate procedures is to allow Senators to offer amendments. In February of last year, more than a year ago, I introduced a resolution, S. Res. 83, to change the standing rules so the same person could not offer both a first-degree and a second-degree amendment. This change of the rules would preclude the majority leader, who has priority of recognition, from so-called filling the tree to prevent anyone else from offering amendments. The Rules Committee has not acted on that resolution, but I think that is an important piece of business, that our rules ought to be changed so the majority leader could not be in a position to fill the tree and preclude other Senators from offering amendments. I am open as to what is going to happen on the cloture vote this afternoon. But certainly, if there is not an opportunity for me to offer my amendment or for others on this side of the aisle to offer amendments, I will oppose it. I believe I have some time left on my order. How much time do I have remaining? I have been asked to yield some time to my distinguished colleague from Utah. I believe this is Republican time at the moment. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we still on Republican time?

Mr. SPECTER. I don't wish to step in front of the distinguished Senator from Colorado, his having waited on the Senate floor. But at any rate, I will not utilize the last 5 minutes of my time so it will be available to the Senator from Utah, either now or after the Senator from Colorado finishes his time because he has been waiting.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I submit a resolution which would modify the budget process to bring some sanity to the Senate as we consider the budget resolution. On March 13, less than a month ago, we took up the budget resolution. From 11:15 a.m. until 2 a.m, on March 14, this body was bedlam. May the record show the distinguished presiding Senator from Montana was nodding in the affirmative. If he wishes to have a disclaimer on that-- he has just signaled it is OK with him. There are two Senators on the floor of the Senate now, one presiding and one speaking, who can attest to an extraordinary event. The Senate is billed as the world's greatest deliberative body. During the time from 11:15 a.m. on the 13th, until 2 a.m. on the 14th, the place was bedlam--absolute bedlam. We were considering amendments which had not been available for examination by Senators or their staffs. We were considering them in a context of 2 minutes equally divided, so the proponent had a full minute. That may be a little long for speeches in the House of Representatives, but it is not in the Senate. The opposite side had 1 minute. It was impossible to hear what was going on in the Chamber. If you tried to listen to get the gravamen of what was going on, it simply could not be heard. During the course of the deliberations after midnight I had occasion to talk to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, and the chair of the Rules Committee, Senator Feinstein, about doing something about it. My staff and I have done some research. We found that a resolution had been submitted, a proposal had been submitted by Senator Byrd in the past. I have taken Senator Byrd's approach, having my staff consult with his staff. We do not yet have it worked out as to whether he will cosponsor because we have been in the period of recess for the past 2 weeks, but Senator Byrd is renowned for his expertise on parliamentary matters. The essence of the resolution would provide that first-degree amendments would have to be filed prior to the 10th hour of debate. Then, second-degree amendments would have to be filed prior to the 20th hour of debate. Then the resolution would be set aside for 1 day prior to the 40th hour of debate so that the amendments could be printed in the Congressional Record. For those who may be watching on C-SPAN, it is impossible to deal with an amendment which has not been filed and printed so that staff and Senators can review it. When the amendments are offered--as there is a right to offer them, under the existing procedures, on the spur of the moment--nobody can follow them. One minute of explanation is totally insufficient. There was one complex amendment which was offered with respect to the city of Berkeley, to take away their earmarks and their grants. I happened to be on the other end of the Chamber at the time and actually could not hear; the bedlam, the noise just precluded hearing. I later found out that there was a lot more to the consideration of the issue than I could digest in the course of that time. The procedures that have been used on the budget resolution have taken two forms which have subverted the process. One is the sense-of- the-Senate resolution, and the second is the resolution on deficit- neutral reserve funds to try to bring it within the confines of the budget resolution. Through those two artifices there are efforts made to legislate, put legislative proposals in the budget resolution. I will ask unanimous consent my full statement be printed in the Record at the close of my comments. The full statement has a reference to amendment No. 4299, which was offered, which was on prescription drugs. It doesn't have anything to do with the budget resolution, but it was a sense of the Senate. This is just illustrative of substantive matters which are offered which have no place on the budget resolution. My prepared statement also refers to amendment No. 4231, which refers to immigration, a detailed proposal. Many of these, if not most of these amendments, are ``gotcha'' amendments. I am getting a lot of agreement from the distinguished Presiding Officer. If anyone is watching on C-SPAN II, a ``gotcha'' amendment is an amendment that compels people to vote on complex questions which can be used on a 30-second commercial. One of the difficulties of campaign practice is to be able to defend your votes. It is sometimes hard to defend a vote on a complex matter where you have no advance notice of the issue and no opportunity to hear it debated. The procedures of the Senate, worth just a momentary comment, are, somebody proposes legislation and files it at the desk. It is referred to a committee. The committee has hearings. Then there is a markup where the bill is considered. Then the committee files a report, analyzing it. Then it comes to the Senate floor for consideration. That is the way the Senate is supposed to function. That is what makes the Senate, arguably, the world's greatest deliberative body. But not when you have amendments which are offered on the spur of the moment with no opportunity to know what is in the amendment and all of these votes are recorded. Try to explain a ``gotcha'' amendment as to why you voted a certain way in answering on a commercial. It just cannot be done. It is my hope the Senate will take up this issue. I think the proposal by Senator Byrd on the scheduling is a good approach. I am not wedded to this approach. There are other approaches which could be undertaken which would be satisfactory to this Senator. We had some discussions on the Senate floor about perhaps limiting the number of amendments with a certification by the two leaders that you had germane amendments. But one way or another, we ought not to again next year undertake a process which has 44 votes. That established a new record-- although on prior years we came close to that with votes numbering in the thirties. We ought to avoid this kind of process and redo our procedures under the budget resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my full statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 31 Senators. It adds $2.1 billion to NIH funding which would bring it to a total of $32 billion. NIH has been grossly underfunded for many years. Enormous progress was made during the NIH doubling; major advances on cancer, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. It also adds $1 billion for LIHEAP, which is significantly underfunded, bringing the total to $3.5 billion. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the yeas and nays. I think it is important people know the strength of this body's support for the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I voted against the Allard amendment because I am not prepared to accept the blanket assessment by OMB as to which programs are effective or not effective. In my judgment, Congress should make the assessment as to which programs are effective or ineffective and then Congress should act to eliminate all of the ineffective programs. Amendment No. 4218